OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/30/2015

"Shields and Brooks on shifting strategy in Syria, Paul Ryan’s speaker ascension" PBS NewsHour 10/30/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the Obama administration’s announcement that it is putting boots on the ground in Syria, newly elected Speaker Paul Ryan’s goals for the House and takeaways from the GOP debate in Boulder.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  But, first, there is a new speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the political landscape may be shifting in the Republican race for the White House.

For that and more, we turn to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome to you, gentlemen.

MARK SHIELDS, Syndicated columnist:  Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Friday before Halloween.  Thank you for being here.

So, let’s talk about the lead story tonight, Mark, and that is the decision by the administration to send less than 50 special operations troops into Syria.  They say, it’s not a change, there won’t be — they won’t be involved in combat.

But does this make it any clearer what the administration’s strategy is in Syria?

MARK SHIELDS:  No.

And it’s — well, taking them at their word that they won’t be involved in combat, Judy, obviously, they are now in harm’s way.  And it increases the risk or exposure of capture and all that that could mean.

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes.  My view is, you can leave the Middle East, but it won’t leave you.  And so the President’s tried to withdraw from the Middle East and withdraw separately from Afghanistan, and, as a result, there has been a void and a chaos and the destruction of these two countries, of Syria and Iraq, as we formerly knew them, a continued crisis in Afghanistan.

And so he’s begun to look around and seeing the situation deteriorating, and he’s trying to adjust.  And, to his credit, he’s trying to adjust in a way that’s politically embarrassing, because he made these statements, we will not put combat — we will not put boots on the ground.  He said it bluntly in Syria.

But he’s doing the right thing.  The question is, is there a strategy?  And I still don’t see what the strategy is.  Are we willing to tolerate Assad?  Are we just trying to get ISIS?  Are we trying to get Assad?  Who are we actually trying to get?

And then it’s — the steps are so small.  And so it looks like the classic case of mission creep.  And what happens if one of these guys gets captured?  What happens if a Russian bomb lands on them?  You can imagine the world the day after that.

And so one would feel more comfortable if there was some plausible road forward, rather than what you get this feeling is, of a series of tactical mission creeps.